AP: Olmert: Israel will never give up right to defend itself

[furman]

Olmert: Israel will never give up right to defend itself
The Associated Press
Published: September 28, 2006
JERUSALEM
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Thursday said he is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, saying in a radio interview that Israel "will never give up its right" to defend itself.

However, he did not say whether Israel planned to take preventative military action and expressed hope international diplomacy would succeed.

Olmert said that Iran is his top priority, even at a time that Israel is trying to end a deadlock with the Palestinians and recovering from the recent war in Lebanon.

"We are making extraordinary efforts to deal with the Iranian threat. This is a threat that can't be ignored," he told Israel Radio.

Olmert said Israel must work with its allies to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms, welcoming involvement by Germany and England. He said the U.S. — and not Israel — should lead these efforts.

more at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/28/africa/ME_GEN_Israel_Iran.php

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Nobody has asked the Israelis to give up the right of self defense.

Classic strawman argument.

[Tom Joad]

3. How Bush defends the aggression against Iraq. eom

[Tom Joad]

2. What does he mean "defend itself" by destroying other nations as

in Lebanon?

The world consensus is that there should be a nuclear-free Middle East, including Israel and Iran, will Israel give up its massive nuclear arsenal?

[Behind the Aegis]

4. ???

Lebanon was destroyed? I think not.

As for nukes, one country is in violation of the NPT and it ain't Israel!

[Tom Joad]

9. Yeah, i guess not being part of the non-proliferation treaty

would make it difficult to violate its terms. Israel is, of course, in possession of a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, and has therefore contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
However, the US is in violation of its laws by continuing to provide military aid to a nation that is involved in nuclear proliferation. The U.S. is also in violation of the non-proliferation treaty because of its deals with India (just to dispel the notion that I only see Israel's violations). http://www.peace-action.org/indiaaction.html Not to mention that the united states has done next to nothing to decrease its arsenal, in violation of the NNPT.

As for your saying Lebanon was not destroyed... perhaps i should have been more specific. 15,000 homes destroyed, over 1,000 civilians killed, including 300+ children, one million cluster bomblets all over the landscape of southern Lebanon, most dropped hours before a ceasefire was enacted for no military reason except to make travel in south Lebanon very difficult, disastrous oil slick on the coast, many factories destroyed... but yes, Lebanon still exists. my bad.

[acmavm]

5. Oh jeeze. Just the perfect capper on a horrible day for humanity.

The torture bill and now this old war criminal pops out of his crypt and starts waving around his sword mouthing the usual threats.

I suggest that Israel give up its nuclear technology. Level the playing field. How about that. Would the thugs in charge of the Israeli government feel so big and bad then?

[Phx_Dem]

7. level the playing field?

not familiar with the concept of deterrence? Is there a "level playing field" in Europe? How about the Americas? Why is it different in the ME?

[Totallybushed]

6. Eventually Isrrael

will attack Iran. It has no real choice as long as Iran persists in seeking its destruction.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. Fishing for a Pretext for War with Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

(Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran – link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )


snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms."
_____________________

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.
He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.

_________________________________________________________

Been there, done that by Zbigniew Brzezinski who was national security advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


snip:"But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

____________________________________________-

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

Iranian showdown – great resource page:

http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

[Phx_Dem]

10. Fishing Ahmadinejad style

IAEA: Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
....
But as I have just stated, because of the inability of the Agency to make progress in resolving the outstanding issues relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s current and past centrifuge enrichment programme, the Agency cannot make any further progress in its efforts to provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. This continues to be a matter of serious concern.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n014.html#iran

Ahmadinejad is WHOLLY responsible for this situation. All he has to do is comply with the IAEA and the problem is solved.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. I agree that Iran should comply and I agree that Ahmadinejad

is playing a dangerous game that is obviously not helping matters which has more to do with Iran's desire to posture itself as a major player in the region. Almost everyone in the region and from around the world ask the question, "why are some countries allowed major stockpiles of nuclear weapons in violation of the International Community when other nations cannot even develop peaceful nuclear power without constant harrassment? What country has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? Ahmadinejad is able to politically capitlize on these very real sentiment from not only the Arab and Muslim street; but the streets of most of the world.

Still though, Ahmadinejad was not even in power and nobody was even talking about him when President Khatami was making every friendly overture the situation allowed. What did it get him? Where did it get Iran? Being labeled part of the "axis of evil" and continued hostility, threats and implied threats of destruction at a time when Iran was finding itself surrounded on all sides by an every growing array of hostile forces.

It is not difficult to imagine how the intransigent rejection of diplomacy, and the escalation of hostile language, and the maneuvering by the same hostile forces who do not even pretend to restrain the posturing of their regional agenda contributes to the situation.

____________________________________________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

Iranian showdown – great resource page:

http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

[oblivious]

12. But Iran's centrifuge enrichment program is completely legal under the NPT

Iran stopped this voluntarily for a period, but got nothing in return, so why should it continue to give up it's legal right? It would make no sense. Iran is in compliance with the requirements of the NPT.

[Phx_Dem]

13. Iran has not fully implemented NPT safeguards

27. Iran has been providing the Agency with access to nuclear material and facilities, and has
provided the required reports. Although Iran has provided the Agency with some information
concerning product assays at PFEP, Iran continues to decline Agency access to certain operating
records at PFEP.

28. Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary
transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities; nor has Iran acted in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol.

29. The Agency will continue to pursue its investigation of all remaining outstanding issues relevant
to Iran’s nuclear activities. However, the Agency remains unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations with a view to confirming the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. The Director General will continue to report as
appropriate.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-53.pdf

[oblivious]

16. Iran is in compliance with the NPT. The Additional Protocol was voluntary.

Iran suspended uranium enrichment activities under the Additional Protocol to show good faith in negotiations with Western powers to make up for its past lack of tranparency and to have sanctions lifted. It did not have to do that under the NPT. But it got nothing in return, except the promise to sell a few airplane parts or something. In fact, in response to its voluntary suspension of enrighment activities, things got even worse in terms of threats from the US and Israel. So what possible reason could Iran have for continuing the voluntary suspension of its rights under the NPT.

Its pathetic that the IAEA, Security Council and Western press never mention the voluntary nature of the Additional Protocol. The IAEA pretends that everyone knows that I guess, the Security Council statements are drawn up by the US, and Western pres conveniently forgets to mention it in their reports.

[bemildred]

14. What about the "right" to bomb the shit out of their neighbors? nt

[breakaleg]

15. I have no issue with that. It's their AGGRESSION that's the problem.

Let's not confuse that with defense.